World – politicshouse.comhttp://politicshouse.com
Global platform for citizensMon, 14 Aug 2017 13:38:36 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.3http://politicshouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cropped-phlogo2tru-1-32x32.pngWorld – politicshouse.comhttp://politicshouse.com
3232What do intelligence leaks about North Korea tell us?http://politicshouse.com/what-do-intelligence-leaks-about-north-korea-tell-us/
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:37:43 +0000http://politicshouse.com/?p=626For an administration purportedly hypersensitive to leaks of classified information, major disclosures about the status of the North Korean nuclear weapons program emanating from unnamed U.S. officials ought to be deeply disconcerting.

Multiple leaks to reporters at the Washington Post and New York Times over the past two weeks indicate that the intelligence community has sharply altered its collective judgment about the number of nuclear warheads in the North Korean inventory; the North’s ability to miniaturize its weapons to fit atop its ballistic missiles; and the anticipated date by which a North Korean nuclear weapon could be delivered to the continental United States. These changes make the threats posed by North Korea appear much more ominous and immediate, though this also depends on how to evaluate Pyongyang’s intentions.

But there’s a troubled history with such intelligence shifts in the past. That should inject caution, if not outright skepticism, in evaluating these new assessments. No serious analyst would contest the undoubted advances in North Korea’s nuclear and missilecapabilities over the past several years. But this doesn’t mean that new assessments should be accepted at face value. Analysts must ask questions about the policy agendas that could be advanced by presenting new intelligence judgments in public.

On July 25, the Washington Post reported that “North Korea will be able to field a reliable, nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile as early as next year,” based on a new assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Its reporters added: “North Korea has not yet demonstrated an ability to build a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be carried by one of its missiles.”

]]>Beijing demands US ‘stop cyberattacks’ after CIA hacking reporthttp://politicshouse.com/beijing-demands-us-stop-cyberattacks-after-cia-hacking-report/
Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:50:49 +0000http://politicshouse.com/?p=581China on Thursday demanded the US “stop its cyberattacks” after Wikileaks released a trove of documents which they said exposed the CIA’s hacking operations.

According to the documents leaked this week, the US spy agency has produced more than 1,000 malware systems — viruses, trojans, and other software that can infiltrate and take control of target electronics.

“We are concerned about the relevant reports. China is opposed to any forms of cyberattacks,” China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman said.

“We urge the US side to stop its wiretapping, video surveillance, espionage and cyberattacks on China and other countries,” Geng Shuang told reporters at a regular press conference.

“China will firmly safeguard its own cybersecurity. It is ready to enhance dialogue and cooperation with the international community to formulate a set of international rules on cyberspace acceptable to all parties,” he added.

By infecting and effectively taking over the software of smartphones, WikiLeaks said, the CIA can get around the encryption technologies of popular apps like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Weibo, and Confide by collecting communications before they are encrypted.

The CIA on Wednesday denounced the leaks, saying they put agents in danger and aid the enemies of the Unites States.

China and America regularly carry out cyberattacks on the other, to the detriment of bilateral ties.

]]>All smartphone users should take away these two lessons from the CIA Wikileaks fileshttp://politicshouse.com/all-smartphone-users-should-take-away-these-two-lessons-from-the-cia-wikileaks-files/
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:07:20 +0000http://politicshouse.com/?p=574This week, WikiLeaks released “Vault 7″—a roughly 8,000-page document purporting to detail surveillance tools and tactics of the Central Intelligence Agency. The leak appears to outline a wide variety of vulnerabilities in smartphones and other devices that the CIA uses to intercept communications and eavesdrop on its targets. Here’s what the average smartphone user needs to know.

You shouldn’t stop using encryption services

The leaked documents suggested that the CIA can bypass the security measures of encrypted messaging apps such as WhatsApp—but that doesn’t mean you should stop using them. This point has gotten a bit confused in the aftermath of the leaks. WikiLeaks itself tweeted that the leak “confirms CIA can effectively bypass Signal + Telegram + WhatsApp + Confide encryption.” This language about encrypted messaging apps was picked up in other places, including the New York Times, which wrote that the vulnerabilities detailed in the leaks allow CIA officers “to bypass the encryption on popular services such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram.”

But, as other outlets quickly pointed out, that message is very misleading for the typical smartphone user. The leaked documents don’t in any way indicate that the CIA has identified vulnerabilities in any of these apps. Rather, the CIA has identified vulnerabilities in the smartphone technology that these apps run on, not the apps themselves.

This distinction matters. To misreport the leaks means that people might come away thinking that they shouldn’t bother using encryption services—and it also wrongly puts the responsibility for addressing these vulnerabilities on the app companies, rather than the phone developers.

That said, it’s always good to be reminded that encryption is not, by any means, a panacea when it comes to online security. Any encryption service you use almost certainly provides you with access to the decrypted contents of messages you send and receive. If you and your friends can view those messages on your phones, then you should take for granted that someone else can, too, so long as they have access to your device.

But that doesn’t mean encryption is useless. On the contrary, encryption services force people who want to spy on your communications to compromise devices rather than just intercepting online traffic. Adding that extra hurdle is worthwhile, even if it won’t deter the most determined and well-resourced spies (like, for instance, the CIA).

Smart devices can easily be used to spy on you

The other important lesson from the Vault 7 leaks is that we should all be wary of how easily our internet-connected “smart” devices can be used to spy on us. The documents include details about exploits used to target Samsung smart TVs and turn them into listening devices, even when they seem to be turned off. Internet-enabled electronics, especially smartphones and personal computers, are inevitably going to be present in just about every home these days—but intelligence agencies’ abilities to turn these devices into remote eavesdropping tools should make people think seriously before adding new ones.

Is the value you get from having smart televisions, speakers, or security cameras worth the worry about how these devices may be compromised and used against you? (Even if you’re not worried about the CIA coming after you, it should go without saying that anything they can do can be done just as easily by any number of others—inside and outside thegovernment.)

You’re probably not going to let your household fall off the grid entirely. But even if all you do is restrict yourself to laptops and smartphones as the only connected devices in your home, you’ll still raise the bar for your personal security. Those devices are often designed by tech companies with deep expertise in computer security, as opposed to other devices manufactured by companies that are relatively new to the security challenges their smart products may present.

So here’s the upshot from the CIA leaks: Keep using WhatsApp and Signal, ditch the smart TV, and remember that no matter how hard you try, you probably can’t protect yourself fully against the formidable surveillance powers of the US intelligence community.

The world must notice that only some countries are struck by rebels and mercenaries aka Jihadists.
These countries do not fall under any of the four Turkic forms:
1- Turkic Anatolia,
2- Turkic Persia, (fake Iranians),
3- Turkic fake Israelite (Jews),
4- Turkic rulers of Arabia, (fake Muslims)
5- Turkic Indians (fake Hindu Aryans), and
6- Turkic Europeans (fake liberal Christians)

Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yemen are good examples.
Once you submit to one of these 4 forms of Turkic evil you are no longer under attack.
Lebanon, Jordon, and Azerbaijan are also good examples.

The Ashkenazim and Sephardi are not Israelite, but with the Ottomans invented Zionism. Now, only pointing to them considered Antisemitism, although they are not Semites at all.
Those are the enemies of Hitler and the Nazis. And before them were the enemies of Alexander the Great.

East Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran, India, and central Asia were heavily enslaved long before Islam and Arabs. This was done by Turkic groups. The term “Slaves” was derived from “Sloven” then “Slavs”. The Arabs were Turkified and ruled by Turkic nomads before Moses. So, Arab slavery of Africa never existed. The genuine Arabs never left Arabia, and those who are called “Arabs” in Africa are not Arabs but Turkic settlers and invaders who moved to Africa from Arabia. Arab colonization and islamization are Turkic policies, they have nothing to do with Arabs and with Islam.

Even the transatlantic slavery was not done by Europeans or Arabs, they were Turkic businesses as it was in Andalusia (Iberia). The terms “Islamic” and “Eastern” were used as covers for the Turkic atrocities everywhere until now. They are not Islamic nor Arabic. They are Turkic.
Hitler and the Nazis were not Anti-Semitists but were actually Anti-Pan-Turanism.

Turkic Zionists are aware that the region is too small for their ambitions. They left this region for their Turkic rulers of Arabia for “Pan-Arab” empire is up to Morocco. The Turkic Zionists are only after the deep vast lands of Russia, this is the second Turkic empire of “Greater Israel”. While the third Turkic empire is left for the Turkic Anatolians to expand from Hungary to the borders with India and China and create “Pan-Tauran” empire. There is no overlaps or competition between Turkic Zionists, Turkic rulers of Arabia, and Turkic Anatolians. On the contrary, they are assisting each other to establish their own empire.
The Agenda of Pan-Turkism is Clear: To Distort Reality & to Effectuate the Takeover of Land. (Note: The Caspian Sea is called the

Islam during prophet Mohamed b. (622-632 AD) was not beyond the main Arabian Peninsula. But during the first three Caliphs, Abu Bakr (632-634), and Umar (634-644)(Assassinated), Uthman (644-656)(Assassinated) it went into invasions.

That was totally unacceptable to many believers but the Turkic elements encouraged such offensive military expansions.

The fourth Caliph Ali (656-661) (Assassinated) was the cousin of the prophet and he stopped that and carried out internal reforms and these were the main causes for the eruption of a brutal civil war throughout his rule (656-661) that ended up by assassinating him and killing most of this family.

By these killings the original Islam died upon birth and it was replaced by a fake Turkic militant cult calling itself Islam. This became the source of terrorism, colonialism, and heresy.

Turkic groups fought Zoroastrianism before the time of Moses and they used twisted Zoroastrianism to create their Turkic versions for the teachings of Zoroaster, Moses, Yeshua, and Mohamed. By these they invented the new “universal” imperial religions: Persian Zoroastrianism, Jewish Judaism, Roman Christianity, and Turkic Islam.

Most monarchies, bankers, and politicians in Europe are their making since the so-called English, French, American, and Russian “Revolutions”. These Turkic groups committed all sorts of crimes in Asia, Europe, Levant, Arabia, and Africa.

]]>U.S. ARMY ARMORED VEHICLE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE 21ST CENTURYhttp://politicshouse.com/u-s-army-armored-vehicle-developments-in-the-21st-century/
Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:12:09 +0000http://politicshouse.com/?p=560The U.S. Army has been plagued with costly acquisition failures in recent decades, chief amongst them the Future Combat System (FCS) program. This $200 billion program initiated in 2000, the largest U.S. military acquisition program ever attempted, failed to produce results on a multitude of levels and was abandoned by 2009. The Armored Ground Vehicle (AGV) and Armored Gun System (AGS) programs also wasted tens of billions of dollars before being cancelled without achieving their intended goals. These programs were chiefly defeated by an overly bureaucratic Army acquisition system, and the fact that the Army had asked for far too much from the defense industry, demanding many new and unproven technological advancements.

The FCS was the most expensive, most ambitious, and most transformative modernization program ever undertaken by the U.S. Army. It is often hypothesized that the U.S. experience in the first Gulf War of 1991 and in the NATO Kosovo intervention of 1999, led to the desire for a more rapidly deployable U.S. Army expeditionary force. FCS envisioned a highly mobile new Army, light enough to be air-deployable, yet lethal enough to survive on the modern battlefield. This survivability would be provided through the leveraging of new technologies, as well as superior command and control capabilities that would tie together all the various armed forces in a seamless information sharing and communications network.

The Army set very high deployment goals as part of FCS, which would prove to be unattainable. The U.S. Army would strive to attain the ability to deploy a combat brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a full division within 120 hours, and no less than five divisions in 30 days. Often referred to as “18+1+1”, FCS envisioned 20 different components integrated together to form the new warfighting system. Eighteen new manned and unmanned vehicles were planned, one computer network integrating all components, communications, information and services, and most importantly, the fighting soldier.

Currently, the U.S. Army relies overwhelmingly on armored vehicle systems that were developed in the 1970s. These systems proved their worth over the last two decades. These “legacy” systems have been repeatedly improved since their introduction. These improvements have consisted of more powerful and efficient engines and drivetrain, modernized communications equipment, targeting and sensory upgrades, improved armor and improved weapons systems

The U.S. Army currently fields the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package) MBTs which are a significant improvement over older models. The latest improvement on the design is the SEPv.3 (version 3). The SEPv.3 achieves notable improvements in its fire control system, ballistics computer and thermal imaging sights. The SEPv.3 has been strengthened against IED attacks, and has additional layers of graphite coated depleted uranium added to its composite armor. It is considered one of the best protected MBTs in the world, despite the fact that it currently lacks an Active Protection System (APS). It has been proposed that the M1A2 SEPv.3 can be retrofitted with the Israeli Trophy APS, or the Quick Kill APS system being developed by Raytheon.

The M2A2 Bradley has proven quite reliable and agile on the modern battlefield. One weakness that was exhibited in its early combat history, was its low level of armor protection. The M2A3 incorporates a number of upgrades which will theoretically extend its life span out to 2030.

An improved fire control system and thermal sights adds to the vehicle’s lethality. The greatest weakness of the vehicle design was remedied by including roof fragmentation protection and mounts for additional armor for use against shaped charge anti-armor munitions. The Bradley Urban Survivability Kit (BUSK) was also developed by the manufacturer BAE Systems, so that the vehicle can be tailored to combat in urban environments.

First adopted in 1960 and first used in combat during the Vietnam War, the M113 APC is the most numerous and widely used armored vehicle in the U.S. military. Over 15 different variants have been produced, some of which still form the backbone of the mechanized formations of the U.S. Army. Although replaced by the M2A3 Bradleyand Stryker in most frontline combat roles, the M113 is still used in a support role.

The most widely used self-propelled artillery vehicle in the U.S. Army inventory is the M109 Paladin 155mm howitzer. It is a fully tracked vehicle with a fully traversable turret. The most modern version of the M109 is the M109A6 variant. The M109A6 is equipped with an automatic fire control system, ballistic computer, and inertial positioning system which allows for great accuracy out to a range of 40km when Excalibur guided munitions are employed.

Further development of the M109A7 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) by BAE Systems was approved by the Defense Acquisition Board in 2013. This program envisions the reworking of the vehicle chassis to incorporate as many components of the M2A3 Bradley as possible. This will lower logistics, inventory and maintenance costs considerably.

The M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is a 12 rocket, surface-to-surface rocket artillery system. The M270 tracked chassis is based on an elongated M2 Bradley vehicle. The M270A1 can launch the entire family of Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, some out to a range of 165km. Lockheed Martin developed the Guided MLRS in 2002 and it is now a standard armament for the system. The GLMRS utilizes a GPS and inertial guidance system fitted in the nose of the XM30 rocket, which turns the rocket into a guided projectile with a range of 70km.

The main U.S. Army mobile air defense artillery systems are the short range FIM-92 Stinger and the long range MIM-104 Patriot. Both systems are highly mobile, and are flexible enough to be fielded in a number of different configurations. Although not normally mounted on armored vehicles, both systems are capable of being mounted to existing armored platforms. The Stinger has been mounted on the M2 Bradley IFV; however, the most common vehicle mounted manifestation of the Stinger is the Avenger, which is equipped with 8 missiles in two quad launchers in a turreted housing mounted of the HMMWV.

Originally adopted as an interim substitute while the armored vehicles envisioned by the FCS were developed, the Stryker has served the U.S. Army as a front line combat vehicle for approximately 16 years, and has been modified and improved periodically over that time span. General Dynamics of Canada developed the vehicle based on their existing LAV III vehicle. There are eleven different variants of the Stryker, with a variant to cover all eight of the manned vehicle systems envisioned by FCS. The M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) mounts a 105mm cannon, which is a light weight version of the original gun utilized in the M1A1 Abrams and M60 MBTs.

The Stryker is a light armored vehicle. Although providing all around protection from small arms fire, the Strykercan be fitted with both slat armor and explosive reactive tiles for added protection. Although there are anti-tank Strykers in each Brigade Combat Team with an added anti-armor capability, the main variant is lightly armed with a crew-serviced machine gun, or a Mk19 40mm grenade launcher. The U.S. Army is currently planning to equip a small number of Strykers with a 30mm autocannon, which will provide greater offensive capability against light armored vehicles, structures and infantry.

Although its legacy systems are quite capable today, the U.S. Army has recognized the need to dispense with its overly bureaucratic weapons acquisition process of past decades in an attempt to stay one step ahead of its closest peers, Russia and China. Both Russia and China have made great strides in recent years to gain parity with the United States on the modern battlefield.

In the first half of August of 2016, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) located at Fort Benning, Georgia, invited almost 200 representatives from the defense industry to a meeting to discuss the desire to acquire a whole new type of vehicle. The program was named “Mobile Protected Firepower” (MPF). The U.S Army has decided to dispense with its overly bureaucratic acquisition system of past decades, and has instead had the TRADOC, the command that is most knowledgeable of what the Army requires, sit down directly with industry professionals from the very start to design a vehicle that takes existing technologies and capabilities to design a workable solution at minimal cost. Apparently, the U.S. Army has learned something from past failed programs.

In concept, the MPF is seen as a highly mobile vehicle that is able to accompany and support Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and mobile and mechanized infantry formations, and aid reconnaissance-in-force missions. The MPF will be a fully tracked armored vehicle light and small enough to negotiate urban areas, and traverse poor roads and bridges in underdeveloped regions of the globe.

General Dynamics has already proposed the use of the chassis of its Ajax vehicle, being produced as an armored recon vehicle for the British Army, as a possible starting point for an acceptable MPF prototype. Named the Griffin, the vehicle mounts the XM-360 light weight 120mm rifled tank gun in a fully enclosed turret on the Chassis of the Ajax. The XM-360 gun was originally designed during the height of the FCS program. It is about 800 pounds lighter than the gun mounted on the M1 Abrams tank, is fitted with a muzzle break to reduce recoil, and is equipped with an autoloader to reduce the crew requirement by one man. Although still in the early stages of prototype development, the U.S. Army hopes to field an MPF vehicle by the mid-2020s.

The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program was initiated in March of 2013. BAE Systems was awarded the contract to supply the new vehicle in December of 2014, and unveiled the first production example in December of 2016. The AMPV is based on the M2 Bradley family of vehicle, and thus now shares many components with the Bradley and newly designed M190A6 Paladin. An M2 Bradley based vehicle to replace the M113 was extremely logical and offers many benefits over the older design. The new vehicle is much larger than the M113, offering 78% more internal volume. Five variants are being produced; General Purpose, Mortar Carrier, Armored Ambulance, Mobile Medical Clinic and Mobile Command vehicle.

General Purpose. This is an armored personnel carrier designed to move troops and materiel.

Mortar Carrier. This vehicle provides fire support to mechanized units. A 120mm mortar will be carried.

Mobile Command Vehicle. Providing commanders superior battlefield situational awareness and command and control capability when and where it is needed most.

Probably the most important procurement program of the last quarter of a century for the U.S. Army, the AMPV will modernize the lifeblood of the services mechanized units.

The Joint Light Tactical vehicle (JLTV) combines the utility of the HMMWV with increased mobility, armament, multiple modular armor protection packages, and the best IED defeating qualities of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP). Oshkosh Defense, who produces the M-ATV for the U.S. military, was awarded the JLTV contract in the summer of 2015. The JLTV balances mobility, utility and protection in a proven combination of existing technologies. The vehicle can be equipped with machine guns, a grenade launcher, or a 30mm autocannon.

The U.S. Army seemed to acknowledge its own failures in recent years, and revised its acquisition process in a number of key areas. The AMPV, JLTV and MPS programs illustrate a more pragmatic approach, aiming for more realistic goals and relying on improving upon existing, proven technology. The U.S. Army is playing catch-up to acquire the armored vehicles desperately required to replace aged and outdated fleets. It remains to be seen how financial constraints will effect these programs, as a new Trump administration, which has vowed to strengthen and rebuild the U.S. military, takes over executive functions in January of 2017.

The leadership of the U.S. Army is faced with the challenge of maintaining a material and technological edge over its “Near-Peer” challengers, Russia and China. Both of these nations have developed impressive and capable armored vehicles during the years when the U.S. Army was throwing money down the drain. The battlefield accomplishments of the Russian T-90 MBT and TOS-1 Self-Propelled Rocket Artillery have been demonstrated in Syria, with the T-90 being the only advanced tank in theater proven to survive ATGM attacks on more than one occasion. New Chinese armored vehicles, though unproven in combat, are surely drawing the interested attention of the U.S. defense industry and the U.S. Army top leadership.

It appears that the U.S. Army has finally turned the page on its failed acquisition efforts, and is progressing in the right direction; however, it must rely on updated legacy systems for at least another decade before new vehicles start making their presence felt in significant numbers.

France and the United Kingdom are currently facing deep-seated challenges regarding the interlinked issues of racism, rising extreme right wing parties and the integration of non-European populations; especially populations coming from former colonies. The present literature focuses on either one or two of these issues but do not fully grasp them and put them in perspective by making the comparison between the British and French social processes of integration that include the key-concept of colonial memory.

How do the French and the British former colonial empires deal, since 1960, with immigration coming from their former colonies. This article attempts to evaluate both countries integration processes and assess official public policies related to their former empires.

Looking at the current situation of ethnic minorities – solely coming from their no-longer empires –, who settled in the UK and France, steers my research within the post-colonial studies framework. Bearing this in mind, to focus on colonial heritage and memory presupposes to examine how a state and its people grasp, comprehend and politicise their own history.

Since the 1960s, despite the extreme violent wars led to give birth to their own nations, former colonised people have been fleeing their home countries for economic and social reasons to the mainland. They were pursuing the idea of having a better life for themselves and future generations.

There is a large literature about how much the French and the British empires cooperated, influenced each other or were just rivals[1].

Fifty years after the decolonization, the United Kingdom and France have two very distinctive approaches to their colonial history and its remains, which includes imperial post-colonial immigration. In the United Kingdom, multiculturalism is the chosen social model of integration and the colonial memory is not state-established. While in France, assimilation is the social pattern that should be followed by any new immigrant and the colonial memory was initiated by the state and groups of people, decades ago. These two models are poles apart but both French and British societies are facing extreme communitarianism and rising far-right wing parties despite the implementation of similar immigration and citizenship laws.

This article will tackle two points:

First: The waves of immigration and the public policies implemented by both states from 1960 to 2014;

Then the focus will be on colonial memory; how both states see their no-longer existing empires.

I. Immigration and public policies: from the rejection of others to a challenging integration (1960-2000s).

For both empires, the decolonisation process actually started a decade before it hit the African continent. India gained its independence in 1947 and Indochina gained its own in 1954. In the late 40s-early 50s, it is fair to say France and Great-Britain were not considering decolonisation as their top priority. At the aftermath of World War II, both empires were assessing what their domestic situations were, trying to build Europe and figure out how to fit into an even stronger bipolar world. In 1956, France engaged in two wars: Algeria; and at the Suez Canal, alongside the British.

In January 1960, Conservative UK Prime Minister Mac Millan delivered his now-famous speech the “Wind of Change”, where he acknowledged that the British government was resolved to the idea of all colonies emancipating themselves from its imperialistic assertion: “The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact”. This public political acknowledgment marks the point of non-return, a time marker, in the European colonial history.

Despite the violence and harshness of decolonisation, former colonised were fleeing their home countries with the idea that “something better” was ahead of them. And this “better” would be somewhere they have heard of and have been told it was better: the metropolis. Migrants coming from former colonies in the 50s and the 60s were seen as a concrete reminder of an imperial colonial past but also as a proof of the present[2] which was the fall of the empires.

In the UK, there were 3 major immigration waves:

1960-1972: immigration coming from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh;

1980-1990: immigration coming from Sri Lanka, formerly known as Ceylan;

1991-2009: +2.4 millions of immigrants – regardless of types, but in 1998, immigration sourcing from the Commonwealth raises up to 82.000 people per year. The acme is reached in 2004 with 156.000 immigrants.

The first politician to take a stand against immigration was Enoch Powell. At the time, Powell was a member of the Shadow Cabinet. In April 1968, he delivered a speech, later called “Rivers of Blood” where he asked for immigration to be drastically reduced. In both countries, laws and regulations that were passed, revolved around the access to citizenship and the control of the number of immigrants. From then to 2014, seven Acts and two reforms were passed by successive governments and, out of those 9, 7 were implemented by a Conservative Prime Minister.

According to the Migration Observatory, migrant population has doubled between 2007 and 2012[3], and went up by 63% between 2001 and 2011[4]. Various polls and ethnic and cultural studies show that immigration was mostly coming from former colonies until the mid-2000s. More people from former soviet republics and Arab countries migrate to the United Kingdom. This diversification implies changes in the perception British people have about themselves, their society and their principles and values. Insularity is not only geographic and material; it is also in peoples’ mind.

Since 2010, immigration laws are now severely decreasing the number of legal immigrants thus, between 2012 and 2013; immigration had decreased by 13%. The quarterly numbers for 2015 were made public mid-May 2015. These numbers show a 50% increase of net migration and for the first time, a significate decrease of immigration coming from Indian and Pakistan.

Surprisingly enough, France faced three waves of immigration and implemented the same kind of laws, at the same time the United Kingdom did. Of course, migrants were coming from French own former colonies, especially from Africa and Asia. In the 80s, President François Mitterrand softened the immigration criteria, but the numbers were very low at that time; before considerably increasing between 1999 and 2009 by 24%[5].

The deeply-rooted British euro scepticism and the very unique way they perceive integration in today’s globalized world, legacy of their past as most powerful colonial empire, are heightened and reinforced. On April 13, 2011 David Cameron delivered a speech before the Conservative Party on his immigration policies. Cameron affirms that immigration is a highly emotional topic. There, he calls on the audience’s emotions and does not appeal for reason. In this speech, a crystal clear differentiation between illegal and legal immigration is made, alongside a clear cut differentiation between mass and controlled immigrations. According to the Prime Minister, illegal immigration should be stopped with the support of the French and under Brussels supervision. Over the last year, he shifted his position on the Europe question. Late May this year, the Queen made official that a referendum on the EU membership will happen before the end of 2017.

The increase of membership to the extreme right wing parties and the phenomena of “I close the door after myself” experiencing by long-term migrants, partly show that British people, tend to strongly advocate against immigration. In the past decade, migrants have been more and more frequently asked to speak English to ease their integration which provoked a national outcry. The United Kingdom is facing some of the consequences of its colonial past through migration but might not fully grasp its colonial memory. Whilst France attempts to grasp, own and pass along its history through education and state established colonial memory.

Both empires have been on the same pace regarding waves of immigration and how to handle them from a legal standpoint. Although, they do not have a the same view on how these newly arrived people, from their former colonies should integrate in respectively British and French societies. Once these immigrants are on the territory of their former metropolis, what happens? In the UK, the social pattern to follow to be integrated is multiculturalism, whereas in France it is a process named assimilation.

II. Integration and colonial memory

Creating and maintaining unity of the nation through the process of integration

Because immigration from former colonies to the UK and France would probably not stop anytime soon, it is only fair to assess if the expected results are delivered by the organized integration models.

In the United Kingdom, ethnic and religious statistics are allowed, which is not the case in France. There are several ethnic categories that evolved throughout time, especially around the 1960s and again in the 2000s. These categories mirror the provenance of the immigrants – otherwise, no need to create a special category or subcategory – aside from the European Union; they mostly come from the Commonwealth.

In the archives from 1960-1969 of the French Embassy located in London[6]; the Prime Ministers (MacMillan, Home and Wilson) were constantly referring to “building the multicultural society of tomorrow”. It appears they were looking at what they could take forward in the future but not really about how to build today’s (back then) multiculturalist society.

Immigrants to the United Kingdom are welcome, even encouraged to keep speaking their native languages, practicing their cultural traditions and their religions. As Adrian Favell argues “Britain sees integration as a question of managing public order and relations between majority and minority populations and allowing ethnic cultures and practice to mediate the process.“[7]. The British mind-set was that in a well politically constructed multi-ethnic environment, racism would be teared down, dialogue would be the key and comprehensiveness would rule. There should be no conflict of identity. Not for the migrants coming to the UK, nor for the British who were witnessing the evolution of the ethnic landscape. There was no conflict of identity intended from the beginning, and I don’t think the first, second nor the third generation face a conflict of identity. Multiculturalism, meant for their “native identities” to go alongside the British one (often called Britishness), maybe to straddle, but not to conflict each other. They have a “layered identity” as historian Linda Colley says[8].

On the other hand, identities conflict in France. Especially for migrants coming from the Maghreb and they conflict even more when it comes to the French-Algerian population. In the 60s, the French mind-set was very similar to the British. Only, the lecture of the situation was opposite, their lecture of imperial history is drastically different. French had the Algerian war that acts like a branding iron mark in people’s minds, on policies, in the diplomatic game etc. Also, the Revolution of 1789 still weights on the French daily life. The revolutionaries took down the monarchy by divine right and the system of unmoveable social classes. In a nutshell, to avoid religion to be used as an argument of power or as an element that could create inequality between people; laicity (political secularism) was created, on top of secularism. Added to these historic arguments, French tend to be more often driven by their feelings than the British do. The latter are known to be more pragmatic[9].

Assimilation, the French social integration process is a very inclusive and convergent one. Immigrants are expected to conform themselves to the neighbouring environment. Their native identity should come second after the French one.

Both former empires dictated social interactions policies, albeit they cannot erase memories and heritages.

The colonial memory as a key element to hold a nation together

The colonial memory is how a state and its people remember the colonial history and heritage and how to move forward as a united nation. This concept was developed and theorized by the French scholar Benjamin Stora in 1978[10]. The memory can be awaken and gave rise to by memorials, in French, lieux de mémoire. I consider as ground definition of lieux de mémoire, the one produced by Pierre Nora in 1992[11]: “a lieux de mémoire – a memorial – in every sense of the word, might be an object physically concrete, maybe locatable or something abstract and intellectually constructed.” A memorial to the fallen, a museum, a movie, a myth are “objects of memory”. They become “lieux de mémoire” when the state or a group of person make it a lieux de mémoire. I use the French term, as it is more precise than the generic English term “memorial”. All the lieux de mémoire appeal to collective memory.

In the UK, there is no state-established colonial memory whereas in France, it is very strong, which is paradoxical. Indeed, in the UK, communities are recognized as such but the state seems reluctant to establish colonial memory and the communities, more often than not, are not acquainted to the concept, thus rarely ask for an official mark that embodies their side of history. Whereas the French constitution states communities do not exist in France, as the French people is one and united, nevertheless the state does establish a colonial memory and often groups of people, associations, are in demand of this establishment.

The UK is more diligent to focus on the British imperial memory and heritage, oppositely France is more thorough to focus on its colonial memory than its imperial one.

Colonial memory, collective memory, and education (mandatory history classes in high school) are bound to hold a people together as a nation-state. However, both countries are seeing extreme right wing parties, not only becoming non avoidable political actors but also the French and British populations agreeing more and more with the extreme right wing discourses.

There is no doubt migration numbers have increased impacting the ethnic and cultural landscape. A parallel with France could be draw. In the last decade, new migrants to the UK were asked to speak English to ease their integration. This debate led to an outburst in the media and civil society, as this issue was raise for the first time. Multiculturalism hit a new limit. In January 2013, a poll revealed long-term migrants were very preoccupied by the increase of migration flows. This is the phenomena of “I-close-the-door-after-myself”, quite common in countries with mass migration. The rise of extreme-right wing parties can be put in perspective with the arguments above.

III. Conclusion:

1. Rising extreme right wing parties as a statement against immigration

The results of both integration processes are not the ones we have counted on to be delivered as communitarianism is one of the outcomes.

In the UK like in France, these parties are standing firm against immigration. In the last decade, conflicts have been physical and political in both former colonial empires. Indeed, UK faced riots in August 2011. France also had its fair share of riots in 2005. Both riots were triggered by policemen involved in the death of teenagers who were descendants of immigrants. These riots showed how much second- and subsequent- generation immigrants are feeling left-aside.

The UK has currently two extreme right wing parties: the British National Party and the UK Independent Party. The BNP is a long term rooted party while UKIP has been created in 1993 and made its first major breakthrough at the local elections in 2013. Two years later, in May 2015 during the General Elections, Nigel Farrage and his party came out as the third party of the UK, based on number of votes with 12.6% and only one seat at the Parliament. In 2014, they scored about 27%[12] at the European elections.

Right after the UK General Elections, Nigel Farrage congratulated himself for placing immigration as the number one topic discussed in the country. Farrage played the anti-European and anti-immigration cards during his campaign. Polls and surveys on the Brexit contradict one another, and they have been for years. It is fair to assume British people are not fiercely against the European Union, as the urban legend spreads. Although, it is an electoral lever that stood the test of time, and is less likely to work in France.

The Migration Observatory published a report in June 2013 displaying that 77% of British people think immigration is “high” or “too high”, 18% think it is “fair”, 4% “too low” and 1% has no answer. 77% is obviously a very high number, especially in a society where multiculturalism is the integration model advocated.

In France, the Front National is the extreme-right wing party and it had its major breakthrough at the Presidential Elections in 2002 where Jean-Marie Le Pen was at the second round, running against Jacques Chirac. Until 2014, they scored around 10-12%, but at the last European elections they scored similar numbers to UKIP.

2. Are integration models, myths and could they be enhanced by the implementation of a (even) stronger colonial memory?

Nowadays, Paul Gilroy depicts multiculturalism as a “blurred term” and “being counterproductive and pronounced dead”[13]. In his argumentation he thereafter stands against the death of multiculturalism even though there are “zombies” terrifying the power in place and the establishment of multiculturalism itself.

Even though immigration has been decreasing in both countries since 2012, British and French populations tend to “feel” immigration is constantly increasing and act upon it by voting for extreme-right wing parties, if they actually do vote.

The newly open arisen of racism through France and Great Britain shows the failure of the two models of integration and both states’ incapacity to determine a balance between education, memorial laws, and the respect of other cultures.

By following Gilroy’s way of thoughts, a different conclusion could be made. Indeed, according to him, as long as many others (Sneja Gunew, “Haunted Nations: the colonial dimensions of multiculturalism”; Etienne Balibar; Greg Clancy; Reza Hasmath even Samuel Huntington) that multiculturalism is not working as much as it used to and as it should. From the research I have done so far, multiculturalism and assimilation do not exist. They are collective ideas. Integration in both countries was and is the result of regular social interactions and integration patterns. Although, education in all its form, basically raising awareness of others and history definitely improve integration.

The creation of museums of immigration, teaching colonial and imperial history in middle and high school, expand and include former colonised people in national remembrance ceremonies are only few examples of a stronger colonial memory to a better integration and move forward as united people.

]]>Is President Obama legalizing millions of unauthorized immigrants?http://politicshouse.com/is-president-obama-legalizing-millions-of-unauthorized-immigrants/
Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:23:02 +0000http://politicshouse.com/?p=408What the Obama administration is doing is allowing certain unauthorized immigrants to apply for something called “deferred action.” Deferred action offers protection from deportation for a certain amount of time — in this case, three years. The administration is also issuing work permits, which allow people to work in the US legally, to immigrants who receive deferred action.

But deferred action, even with a work permit, isn’t the same as legal status. Immigrants who get deferred action are still unauthorized. They’re not legal, and they’re not getting a path to citizenship.

Legal status is a term that means specific things in immigration law. The executive branch is allowed to decide who should and shouldn’t be deported, and even decide to protect immigrants in the second category from deportation temporarily, but only Congress can decide who should qualify for legal status.

Why does this matter? For one thing, legal status is much harder to take away, but deferred action can be taken away very easily. A future president could easily strip protection from deportation to all the immigrants covered by the Obama administration, which would allow them to be deported again. That wouldn’t be the case if immigrants were getting legalized through the new program.

This ranking was calculated by looking at inflation and exchange rates, and comparing the prices of a number of items and services like-for-like, to see exactly how expensive it would be to maintain the same standard of living in the new country.

The ranking is intended to help companies estimate the costs of employees living abroad of international assignment. For a city like Zurich, Switzerland, the high cost of living in the city and the unfavorable exchange rate are the biggest factors contributing to its high ranking.

However, for a city like Juba — which is in the poorer, newly formed country of South Sudan — the markup on the items an international employee might request or need is a lot higher. There has also been a flood of foreign aid groups, international diplomats establishing embassies, and oil companies bringing in international workers, driving the prices of these imported goods up. Juba has shot up to the number one spot after sitting at number nine on last year’s list.

This article is published in collaboration with Business Insider. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.

Author: Dennis is a reporter at Business Insider, primarily covering men’s lifestyle.

]]>Fed’s Giant Ponzi Schemehttp://politicshouse.com/feds-giant-ponzi-scheme/
Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:21:28 +0000http://politicshouse.com/?p=346There is more mystery and nuance to the economic story than we are being told by the pundits. Here’s the real story about debt, bubbles and a 35-year-long Ponzi Scheme.

Mainstream media tells us every day that we are in the sixth year of recovery and very soon we will hit the “escape velocity” for GDP growth which would mean, I don’t know, perhaps a brand new BMW in every garage. People are constantly reminded of the vibrant housing market and the non-stop bull market on Wall Street.

Well, maybe there is a little more mystery and nuance to the economic story than we are being told by the pundits. Let’s start with a simple chart that has a profound truth in it.

What the chart shows is interest rate falling over the last 35 years – from 18% in the early 1980s to 0% by 2009 and staying there ever since.

You see, interest rates determine the “cost” of money. So, by lowering interest rates constantly, the Federal Reserve Bank made money “cheaper” and thus more easily available. Of course, at the surface, this sounds like a good thing, right? Who doesn’t want more money?

Rather than diving into a boring financial analysis, let’s understand this through a simple story.

Imagine a small town called Murika where a rich man named Mr. Garch owned a big factory that employed most of the people in the town. His cousin owned the bank, his best buddy was the mayor, and his business partner’s wife ran the local newspaper. But the good people of Murika didn’t mind because they were getting paid well, and local businesses were booming. People liked Mr. Garch so much that they called him by his first name, Oli.

Then a few years back, Oli started cutting the bonuses of his employees. The local newspaper gave really convincing reasons why this is necessary. Oli also promised that good times will be back soon if people just worked a little harder.

Although Murikans accepted the pay cuts and worked harder, they didn’t see any pay raises. Soon the local businesses started to suffer as fewer people were buying cars, going out to restaurants and so on. They started complaining a lot, and a few even started questioning Oli’s true intentions.

That’s when Oli’s cousin, head of the local bank, announced that interest rates were being reduced for businesses as well as individuals. This was great because, suddenly, the monthly payments for several things from cars to houses got more affordable. So people borrowed more to buy the things that made them happy, and in a short time, things were back to normal.

But there was one problem. Debt had to be paid back. Bummer. So after a couple of years of binging on debt, people were maxed out. The raise that Oli promised never came. In fact, there were more layoffs and full-time jobs were being replaced with part-time jobs. So people started cutting down on expenses.

But local businesses knew what to do: Go to the banker! And guess what? The kind banker reduced the interest rates again. Murikans were happy. They forgot all about their financial difficulties. “Hey, you work hard, borrow money, and buy what you want. The monthly payments are really low, so who cares? The most important thing is to have stuff.”

When some people still struggled to buy homes and cars, clever innovations were used to help people achieve the Murikan dream. “You can’t put 20% down payment for your home? No problem, just do 15% or 10% or 5% or even 0%! Can’t afford your car payment? It’s all good, pay it over 6 or 7 or even 8 years! Don’t have good credit scores? Don’t even sweat about it!”

The mayor also loved the trend in the interest rates. He borrowed lots and lots of money to build parks and sports stadiums (which were built by his brother-in-law) and he even established a program to give free food to people who got laid-off by Oli. This guaranteed the mayor’s re-election.

Another thing happened during these go-go years: while regular people borrowed money to buy cars and homes, Oli borrowed money to buy local businesses. He borrowed millions of dollars and bought many local businesses — car dealerships, movie theaters, restaurants, bars, apartment complexes and more. This essentially lead to the demise of small businesses in Murika, although nobody would notice this trend for a long time.

The real winner of these transformations was the banker. He controlled the money and determined who got it. He was popular like Santa Claus, but what Murikans didn’t realize was that the banker just created money (and credit) out of thin air. He then loaned that funny money ten times over for an interest. However, since this system had a sophisticated name — “Fractional Reserve” — Murikans never suspected this could be fraudulent. Plus, they trusted the newspaper to tell them the truth. However, the newspaper also relied on the banker for loans, and so it kept singing praises of the banker, calling him the “The Maestro.”

It is worth mentioning that there was one group that did not benefit from the low-low interest rates: the poor. The system was like an interest-rate apartheid system that selectively favored some people. For example, all over Murika, there were payday lenders who targeted the poor and easily charged 300% or more for loans. In fact, by the end our story, there were more payday lenders than McDonald’s.

So this went on for a while, until when one year, the interest rates reached 0%.

Zero percent! What’s next?

That’s when the banks announced they ran out of magic bullets. There was no way to artificially stimulate the economy anymore. People were struggling with their personal debts; as for the mayor, he left the town one day after revealing an incredibly large debt that the town owed. Mr. Garch – nobody called him Oli anymore – bought the local police many militarized vehicles and guns so that Murikans wouldn’t even dream of protesting.

Murikans realized that cheap debt is not the same as higher income or wealth; credit is not the same as cash; and that debt today meant tough sacrifices tomorrow. They understood the wisdom from the Bible that says, “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.”

Hopefully, the story of Murika resonates in a way you can map it to the history of America over the last 35 years. But what has happened in America is actually far worse than the story above.

Unlike Murika, the bankers and corporations of America have innumerable tools to manipulate the stock market and the economy. How is the US economy, right now, affected by all this financial engineering? Answer: bubbles. Not one, but many. Housing bubble, stock market bubble, student loan bubble, Fracking bubble, car loan bubble, corporate junk bond bubble, and bond market bubble are some of the glaring examples.

You can put them all in one category: “Debt Bubble.”

(For a more in-depth analysis of how these bubbles of deceptive wealth are creating vast inequality in America, check out my article, “Zombie Economy, Living Bubble.”)

A debt bubble is inherently unsustainable because, the more you borrow, the more you are forced to borrow in the future. People buy an expensive stock or a home on the hope that there will be a “greater fool” who will borrow even more money to get this hot potato off their hands. This is the classic Ponzi scheme.

The Achilles heel of a debt bubble is higher interest rates. When the interest rates go up, debt becomes more burdensome, and there will be fewer suckers, and the house of cards will crash.

Take, for example, our federal government that has a whopping $18 trillion of debt — six times the tax revenue of the government. This year alone, it will spend about $500 billion in interest payments (which will not bring down the $18 trillion by one penny). And guess how the government is paying for that? Of course, by borrowing!

Every week, old bonds mature, and rather than paying what the bond is worth, our government just “rolls them over” by issuing new bonds for the same amount!

If the interest rate goes up by just 1 percentage point, the interest payment will go up by an additional $180 billion (1% of $18 trillion).

Any “normalization” of interest rates will be very painful. Stock market will be the first one to burst, followed by housing and others. The burst of this bubble can be even more devastating than the one in 2008 since everything that was big in 2008 is now much bigger.

So where do we go from here? Well, there are three options: the good, the ugly, and the insane.

The good option is also, unfortunately, next to impossible in the current political environment. This option is the way of living sustainably, living within our means, and paying off our debt. First, it means getting rid of the Federal Reserve Bank — the front-group for Rothschild banksters and oligarchs. Or, at least, take away their power to set interest rates or print money. Second, it means enormous changes in our laws and tax system, including forcing corporations to significantly raise wages. Good luck trying to make the 0.1% part with their money. Third, Americans need to learn to live within their means and reduce their appetite for mindless consumerism.

The ugly option means just kicking the can down the road. Rinse and Repeat. Keep the 0% interest rates, and when the bubbles burst, just print more money – “QE forever.” (QE is Quantitative Easing, the fancy name for fraudulent money printing by banks). We can become just like Japan which has been stuck at 0% for the last 15 years. Now the Japanese government spends half of its revenue on just the interest payments on its massive debt of over $11 trillion; every Japanese child born in 2015 is greeted with a debt of $100,000. Yes, this rabbit hole into the Wonderland of debt can very well become the role model for America.

There is an insane third option which is very popular among the elites. The thinking behind this is, “Okay, the Ponzi scheme worked well for the elites on the way from 20% to 0%. So why stop here? Let’s go into the the negative territory!”

Imagine, for example, if you borrow $1000 but have to return only $990. This is great for gamblers and spenders who can borrow money to consume or “invest” in high-risk speculations.

This also means a bonanza for the uber-wealthy. Consider a hedge fund guy borrowing $10 million and having to return only $9 million. He can use the difference of $1 million to buy a yacht!

In this scenario, the banks literally lose money every time they lend.

So how does the bank continue functioning if they lose money every time they give out a loan? Why, of course, they steal from the savers. Negative interest rate means that if you deposit $1000 in your bank today, tomorrow the balance will be a little smaller. Sounds preposterous, right?

The winners are banksters and governments. Banksters and financial institutions can make a lot of money through transaction fees.

This is also great for the government since they can tax and also monitor every single transaction. Getting paid $40 for babysitting? Aha, nice try, you sneaky teenager! We will make sure you pay taxes on that.

NSA can also open a shiny, new office and spend all day analyzing trillions of transactions, looking for any signs that the average American might be a crook.

The war on cash is also happening right now in other forms. For example, every time you withdraw $10,000 or more of your hard-earned money from your bank account, the bank will notify the government. It’s the law now. And if you try to withdraw, say, $5000 twice within a short time period – whatever that is for the government – you can expect a thorough investigation. That’s how Dennis Hastert got caught. Your rights to spend your own money are limited in this brave New World Order.

Another form of the war on cash is “civil forfeiture” when the government can simply take your cash without arresting you or charging you with any crime. Billions of dollars have been taken from tens of thousands of Americans over the last few years. You can watch John Oliver describe this legal theft by the government.

You may ask, “Can I move my money to another country?” Good thinking, but with a new law called FATCA, passed in 2010, most banks in the world act as IRS agents. Welcome to “One World, One Government, One Bank.”

To summarize the situation in America: you can lose your cash if you try to withdraw it from your bank, if you have it in your possession, if you try to deposit it in a bank, or if you try to transfer the money to another country.

Just look at what’s happening in Greece. At some point, every heavily indebted country will face the same fate. Banksters and bureaucrats will take over nations and implement their supremely effective tools of “cut, raise, and sell.”

They will cut social security and public services (but not the military, of course); raise taxes either explicitly or implicitly through other means – Obamacare might qualify for this; and sell all productive public assets to big corporations and banks – the holy grail of privatization.

So where does all this gloom and doom leave us? We should not expect simple answers since we got into this mess by falling for clichés and slogans. We have veered so far from the truth, we have allowed ourselves to be conned so long, we have given up so much power to the elites, and we have been drawn into such depths of apathy and ignorance, that it is going to take herculean efforts to turn this around.

George Orwell predicted the future with uncanny insight, but he didn’t know that tyranny would come in the form of banking and corporatocracy. Only a massive social awakening in America can prevent the fruition of Orwell’s prophetic words: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/06/23/feds-giant-ponzi-scheme/

]]>Army to consider hollow point bullets for new pistolhttp://politicshouse.com/army-to-consider-hollow-point-bullets-for-new-pistol/
Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:23:47 +0000http://politicshouse.com/?p=295The Army is considering the use of expanding and fragmenting ammunition, such as hollow point bullets, to increase its next-generation handgun’s ability to stop an enemy.

This bit of news was revealed Tuesday, during the service’s fourth industry day for its Modular Handgun System.

After a recent legal review within the Pentagon, the Army can consider adopting “special purpose ammunition,” said Richard Jackson, special assistant to the Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, according to an Army news release. This marks a departure from battlefield practices over a century old.

Jackson told Army Times that while this isn’t the first approved use of such bullets in the military, the stance represented “a significant re-interpretation of the legal standard” for ammunition. He also said a lot has changed since the initial movements against the round, especially with the increased prevalence of asymmetric warfare.

“There’s a myth that [expanding/fragmenting bullets] are prohibited in international armed conflict, but that doesn’t make any sense now,” Jackson said.

More than 20 manufacturers are vying to make the Army’s next handgun, dubbed the XM-17. The solicitation for the contract is to produce more than 280,000 guns for the Army, and is expected to drop later this month, said Lt. Col. Terry Russell, program manager for individual weapons at Program Executive Office Soldier. First deliveries are currently slated for 2018.

Most of the Army uses full metal jacket, or ball ammunition, in both handguns and rifles. These rounds are designed to hold together, increasing penetration and narrowing the tunnel of damaged tissue.

Expanding and fragmenting bullets can flatten or break apart, and are more likely to remain in the body of a target and transfer all of their energy to it. A wider swath of tissue is typically destroyed.

Modern complaints against the M9 have included stopping power. The potential shift toward hollow point ammunition could allow manufacturers a tool to change the ballistics equation substantially, without a shift away from the 9 mm round. Advantages of a 9 mm round include theoretically larger magazine capacity (because of a smaller bullet) and adherence to the NATO standard, allowing for interoperability of the allied nations’ weapons.

On the battlefield, the U.S. has generally observed the 1899 Hague Convention rule barring expanding and fragmenting rounds, despite the fact that it never has been signatory to that particular agreement, Russell said.

The U.S. reserved the right to use different ammunition where it saw a need. For example, Criminal Investigations Command and military police use hollow points — as do law enforcement agencies around the country — in part to minimize collateral damage of bullets passing through the target. Special Forces also uses expanding/fragmenting rounds in counter-terrorism missions.

“The use of this ammunition supports the international law principles of preventing excessive collateral effects and safeguarding civilian lives,” an Army statement said.

In theory, the Pentagon appears to have legally justified broader use that could include rifle rounds, Russell said, though he also called the standard issue 5.56 mm Enhanced Performance Round (M855A1) “a very good performing round.”

“I don’t know that there would be a necessity to have another round, but I’m not the requirements writer, either,” Russell said.

The competition to replace the long-standing Beretta M9 standard had already been opened to weapons of different calibers, opening the door to .40 and .45 caliber handguns. Russell noted the complexity of the different variables that come into play.

For example a larger round means more bullet mass and more gun powder, both of which would give it more power. But that can also damage accuracy, with more recoil forcing a shooter to spend more time reacquiring the target.

“It’s about better performance than what we currently have, which includes the shootability,” Russell said. “You can’t just isolate one variable (as more important than the other).”

“We want them to produce the best system that meets the requirement.”

The FBI switched from 9 mm to .40 caliber after a deadly 1986 shootout in Miami in which the shooters managed to keep fighting after being hit. The FBI is in the process of switching back to 9 mm – though the federal law enforcement agency uses hollow point bullets.

The Hague Convention of 1899 included a declaration banning bullets that “expand or flatten easily in the human body.” The premise of the convention – designed well before World War I – was that the bullets caused unnecessary and therefore inhumane injury unrelated to stopping a combatant from continuing to fight. The U.S. did not to sign onto that rule.

The British – its most fierce opponent in 1899 because of its use of flattening “dum-dum” bullets, most frequently on the frontier of British India – later signed on in the Hague Convention of 1907.